1. A Map for Horizontal Disparity in Monkey V2
Gang Chen, Haidong D. Lu, Anna W. Roe 
Neuron 
Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages (May 2008)
DOI: /j.neuron
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

2. Figure 1
Localization of the Disparity Response in the Thick Stripes of V2
(A) A section stained for cytochrome oxidase showing the positions of thin (red arrow heads) and thick (a black arrow head) stripes of V2.
(B) Enlarged inset of red boxed region in (A).
(C) Percentage of pixels in V1 and in the thin, pale, and thick stripes of V2 with significant (p < 0.05) response to RDSs. More pixels in thick stripes (n = 5) responded to depth stimuli than those in V1 in the pale or thin stripes within V2 or (p < 10−6, Student's t test). Error bars = SEM.
(D) Ocular dominance map in V1 (left eye minus right eye) reveals V1/V2 border (horizontal line).
(E) Orientation map (differential response, horizontal versus vertical gratings).
(F) Thin stripes are determined by the areas that prefer color to luminance. Note that regions with color preference (thin stripes) have poor orientation preference. The gray region is out of field of view because the camera was moved to a slightly different location for the color run.
(G) The difference between binocular stimuli (dark pixels) and monocular stimuli (light pixels) reveals the position of the thick stripe (cf. Ts'o et al., 2001).
(H) RDS disparity map. Sum of all Near and Far.
(I) White pixels are those with significant responses to RDS (compared with responses to uncorrelated stereograms; Student's t test, p < 0.05).
Scale bars: (A) and (B), 1 mm. Scale bar for (B) applies to (D)–(I). A, anterior; M, medial.
Neuron  , DOI: ( /j.neuron )
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 2 Disparity Topography in V2
(A) Differential image between all Near (dark pixels) and all Far (light pixels) stimuli. Black dashed line, border of V1/V2. (B–H). Single-condition images evoked by three Near stimuli with disparities of 0.34° (B), 0.17° (C), and 0.085° (D); Zero (E); and three Far stimuli of 0.085° (F), 0.17° (G), and 0.34° (H). The positions of the two crosses are constant through (A)–(J). The outlined regions in (B)–(H) show areas with significantly greater response to RDS than to uncorrelated stereograms (p < 0.05, Student's t test). As described by ellipse fits, the lengths of these domains in (B)–(H) are 802, 831, 856, 933, 1216, 690, and 918 μm, respectively. Widths are 431, 428, 350, 437, 370, 549, and 298 μm, respectively. (I) Summary showing overlay of three disparity contours (red: 0.34° near; green: zero; blue: 0.34° far). (J) Optical image of response to uncorrelated random dots (versus Blank; a streak of white activity [upper right corner] is due to blood vessel noise). Grayscale: magnitude of imaged response in percent reflectance. Color scale: near to far disparity. Scale bars: (A) and (B), 1 mm. A, anterior; L, lateral.
Neuron  , DOI: ( /j.neuron )
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 3 Disparity Topography in V2: A Second Case
(A) Differential image between all Near (dark pixels) and all Far (light pixels) stimuli. Dotted box: region shown in (B)–(K). Black dashed line: V1/V2 border. (B–H) Single-condition disparity images: −0.34° (B), −0.17° (C), −0.085° (D), zero (E), ° (F), +0.17° (G), and +0.34° (H). Three activation domains are labeled 1, 2, and 3 in (B). Color outlines: regions of significant activation (p < 0.05, Student's t test). (I-K) Summary topographies of domains 1 (I), 2 (J), and 3 (K). Conventions are the same as in Figure 2. Scale bars: 1 mm. A, anterior; M, medial.
Neuron  , DOI: ( /j.neuron )
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

5. Figure 4 Overlap and Distance Measurements Support Topography
(A) Percent overlap between pairs of disparity domains. Percent overlap predicts delta disparity: the greater the overlap, the more similar the disparity.
(B) Distance between centers of mass of disparity domains. Distance predicts delta disparity: smaller distances predict similar disparity. Numbers of domain pairs are indicated by numbers in bars. Since no two disparity domains have delta disparity larger than 1.1°, the largest bin shown is 1.1° of disparity difference.
(C–E) Average length, width, and length-width ratio of All (black, n = 123), Near (red, n = 45), Zero (green, n = 50), and Far (blue, n = 28) from nine cases. Error bars = SEM.
Neuron  , DOI: ( /j.neuron )
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

6. Figure 5 Comparison between Neuronal and Optical Signals
(A) Four electrode-recording locations (marked by colored squares) within the color-coded disparity domains (see color scale bar). (B) Example consistent with columnar organization. Disparity tuning of four neurons recorded within a single vertical penetration is shown. Red lines: Gaussian fit. Blue triangles: preferred disparity. (C and D) Normalized optical (C) and neural (D) disparity tuning curves at each of four locations in (A). Dashed vertical lines indicate zero disparity. (E) Scatter plot for each pair of optical (abscissa) and neuronal (ordinate) signals in (C) and (D), showing significant correlation (robust regression, r = 0.80, p < 0.01). Scatter plot for disparity preference (F) and disparity tuning width (G) obtained from optical and neuronal signals from three cases is shown (n = 27). Disparity preferences are similar (p > 0.4, paired t test) while tuning widths tend to be wider than optical signals (see histograms at upper right corners; p < 0.01, paired t test). Different marker shapes are neurons recorded from different monkeys. For detailed optical and neuronal tuning curves, see Supplementary materials (Figure S5). Thick lines are diagonals. Scale bars: (A), 1 mm; (D), 0.25°. Error bars = SEM.
Neuron  , DOI: ( /j.neuron )
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

7. Figure 6
Relationship between Orientation Domains and Disparity Domains
(A) The orientation selectivity of areas with significant response to any disparity tested (same case as shown in Figure 1). The preferred orientations are shown (color wheel). Scale bar: 1 mm.
(B) Percentage of pixels (of the disparity-selective pixels) at each of the 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° orientations. Within disparity-selective pixels, across all cases, the average percentage of areas covered by each orientation was not significantly different from 25% (all p > 0.5, Student's t test).
(C) Statistical results of the average percentage of pixels in an orientation domain covered by different disparity domains. Based on a balanced two-way ANOVA, where the factors were disparity, orientation, and their interaction, there is no significant influence from orientation or from disparity (both p > 0.8), or significant influence or between them (p > 0.9).
(D) Averaged disparity tuning strength within orientation preference domains. No significant difference was found between horizontal and 45°, 90°, or 135° orientation preference domains (all p > 0.5, Student's t test, n = 9).
Error bars = SEM.
Neuron  , DOI: ( /j.neuron )
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

8. Figure 7 Possible Organization in V2
Depiction of possible organization in V2, where orientation and disparity parameters are orthogonally represented.
Neuron  , DOI: ( /j.neuron )
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions